These complexities should be borne in mind when thinking about how a company like Facebook could be more regulated internationally. AsTufekci sums it up, zeynep tufekci @zeynep Replying to @zeynep Business interests vs. human interests. When history of all this is written, Myanmar will be a piece that won’t be ignored. Some of this *is* complex. That was an egregious shrugging of responsibility. They should have made it a giant priority in 2013. Rafiq Copeland @RafiqCopeland Replying to @KevinFoley In Germany they have 1200 German language content reviewers for 40million users in order to meet the government enforced 24hour review threshold. In Myanmar for 30million it is 'dozens' and they've only just been hired. This doesn't come close. @zeynep 2:44 AM · Apr 11, 2018 77 Reply Copy link Read 2 replies There are questions to ask about Facebook’s flat-footedness in the face of clear evidence of its role in a mass atrocity. Myanmar is only the most vivid example of dynamics playing out in many developing countries—and as developed countries with political and economic power brainstorm ideas for the regulation of Big Tech, this should be a part of the calculation. Legal frameworks have the power to provide standards against which Facebook’s conduct could be measured, and a common vocabulary with which to have the conversation. They could also provide procedural mechanisms that provide transparency into what resources Facebook is dedicating to minimizing its contribution to harm in these situations and visibility into specific issues such as the steps it is taking to prevent moderators from again removing content that could potentially be important evidence of human rights abuses. International law will need to account for the role of new communications technologies in crimes against humanity, and the unprecedented power a few corporations have over the public spheres of foreign countries. But this reckoning will take time, and meanwhile, domestic legal systems are already contemplating action. As they do so, lawmakers in countries like the United States should consider what tools are available to shed light not only on the effects of the activities they are thinking of regulating domestically, but also on the power of these platforms in societies with weaker institutions. To ask Facebook to remove all hate speech or misinformation from its platform is unrealistic and unhelpful. But to ask it to take reasonable steps to create systems to prevent the spread of the majority of the worst content in a timely fashion could save more than a few lives. Topics: Cyber & Technology Tags: Myanmar, ethnic cleansing Evelyn Douek is a Lecturer on Law and S.J.D. candidate at Harvard Law School, and Affiliate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. She studies online speech regulation and platform governance. Before coming to Harvard to complete a Master of Laws, Evelyn clerked for the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, the Hon.